Convergence - shifting control to the people?

New media has always been touted as the hero of the user (or prosumer), where we control 'what we watch and what we hear, what we keep, discard or forward' (Deuze 2005, p246). But is convergence really doing this?

To that one controls every aspect of what hey hear or see is a bold statement. In this new age of media what exactly are the tools which allow such freedom. Online streaming? Email? Granted a lot of people no longer have pay tv as most of what they want is now available online. But as Henry Jenkins says, convergence does not mean the new replacing the old, it simply means the new and old meeting and finding a way to co-exist. We already see signs of that.

The once free videos now have unskippable ads at the start of them, which if you are really fussed about can download things such as adskip and adblock to stop it, but that doesn't mean you have escaped. I do not think I have been to a website in the past few years that hasn't had some kind of banner ad. It seems that convergence simply means the same old stuff just on a different platform.

Looking at it from a philosophical point of view, you can even say the new media has taken away our ability to watch what we want. There are several studies, on-going and concluded which state that people who watch a screen (TV, Computer, phone etc...) for excess of 2 hours per day have a lower attention span than those who don't (Grohol 2010). With a lessened attention span it makes it quite difficult to focus on things, even though you want to watch them. For example, although The Godfather is a great movie, it is hard to sit through the whole thing for me. TV shows that go for an hour have a hard time keeping my attention, even ones that I record and want to watch.

So what is the real effect of convergence?

Deuse, M. 2007, 'Convergence culture in the creative industries', internationsal journal of cultural studies, vol.10, no.2, pp.243-263.

Grohol, J. 2010, 'Video Games and TV Linked to Decreased Attention Span', PsychCentral, July 5, weblog, accessed 30/8/2011, http://www.suite101.com/content/attention-spans-decreasing-with-too-much-technology-a258607

Jenkins, H. 2006, 'Introduction: "Worship at the Alter of Convergene"', in Convergence Culture: where old and new media collide, New York University Press, New York, pp.1-24.

Pytel, B. 2010, 'Attention Span Decreasing With Too Much Technology', Educational Issues, July 7, accessed 30/8/2011, http://www.suite101.com/content/attention-spans-decreasing-with-too-much-technology-a258607

Patents: unnecessary evil or tool of the people?

Copyrights and patents are usually argued to protect the right of the creator so they can make some kind of money from their creation. But the issue goes deeper than people having the right to make money from their own idea.

Boldrin and Levine (2007) argue that patents actually do the opposite of what they were purposed for, and hinder economic growth through lawsuits and not allowing others to add to the idea for years if not decades. Using the example of the steam engine and how it was not Watt's first patent that made the steam engine what it is, but rather a combination of 3 or 4 ideas that made the steam engine a viable source of propulsion and good for widespread adoption.

However this idea that patents are evil since they don't protect their owners anyway overlooks the 2nd main purpose of a patent system: 'promoting public disclosure of new ideas' (Pol and Carroll 2007, p60). Had Watt not patented his plans for a steam engine, had he not made it public, than no one would have had the basis for which to make it better. The only way others would be able to create steam engines (without Watt's basis) would be to reverse engineer Watt’s engines when he sold them publicly. However this would have added many more years of research and design than the patent of a forced monopoly did.

Trade Secrets, although hard to keep, allow businesses to stay as a monopoly forever (or until someone reverse engineers or discovers the product by themselves randomly). Coca-Cola keep the recipe a trade secret which means, although they have no patent, no one it seems is able to match their flavour. This is a minor example, but imaging if say a medical engineer invented a new tool that made heart surgery 10x safer but decided not to patent his idea but instead allow doctors to use it but never keep it (to save it from reverse engineering). He would have a limitless potential to make money from it but there would be no point where his idea became freely public and allowed others to produce this new device. Granted the example is farfetched it proves the point that patents, although creating forced monopolies, do have the potential for good.

Although it is sometimes used to simply keep market control. Things such as Bogus patents where an extremely minor insignificant thing of a product is changed in order to get is passed for a new patent (known as a bogus patent) (Pol and Carroll 2007, p65). So although there are some negatives to the system, the greater good it can do makes it a viable system and one to keep.



REFERENCES

Boldrin, M. and Levine, D.K. 2007, 'introduction' in Against Intellectual Monopoly, Cambridge University Press, Cabridge, UK, pp1-15.

Pol, E. and Carroll, P. 2007, 'The Creative Economy: First Principles', in An Introduction to the Creative Economy, McGraw Hill, North Ryde, NSW, pp.33-78.

All Work And No Play Is A Matter Of Perspective

With the industrial age and the traditional 9 to 5 job came the idea of leisure time (Mitew 2011). When time wasn't spent working it was said to be leisure time, but now with the lines between work not even blurring, realistically they have already gone with almost every single person doing more and more work related activities outside of work hours and in the home. So why is this new form of work suddenly acceptable?

This 'function creep' (Gregg N.D., p14) describes many behaviours such as monitoring and finishing tasks at home that many people would not consider "work". Today's technology has made it possible and therefore necessary to work from home in order to 'keep ones sanity'. Even the new system of networks (rather than hierarchies) thought to bring more power to the worker is actually believed to have created more problems as people tend towards 'self-blaming' and feel like 'failures' if work isn't a success rather than blaming other factors (Banks 2007, p11 in Gregg N.D., p15). So the increased power in the workplace from the shift in responsibility and communication means that people now feel as though they are in control of their entire work life and therefore take the blame when things go awry...?

Bringing work home is the norm and as such people now need a home office, Smartphone, laptop and any other device to make their life "easier". As Gershuny (2000) suggests, it seems as though leisure has become something that you have to work hard for. As shown by the increase in consumption of goods and services, people are still moving at 110% during leisure time in order to fit in all the leisure activities they have worked so hard to obtain. Even now what was once a pure leisure activity has become work-related. Companies even have business meetings on Second Life (Wagner 2007, Pattison 2008).

The most interesting point of all this is the idea that people have become internet addicts and so do not mind doing the extra work simply because they love to be on the net. It may not be as rational as that in their minds but put simply, people like being on the net surfing, looking at web pages, answering emails etc...It is almost as if whilst working online their minds have gone off into cyberspace. I know whilst writing this blog I have become oblivious to things around me, which is in its own way sort of calming. The world narrows as you focus on the screen and not the problems outside it.

Maybe that is the power of technology. Work has become leisure. People stating they can get a good night sleep after working on emails all night because their mind can rest easy. Rather than leisure being the absence of work, it is now the activities which make us feel most at ease.

References

Banks, M. 2007, The Politics of Cultural Work, London, Palgrave, cited in Gregg, M. N.D., Function Creep: Communication technologies and anticipatory labout in the information workplace, accessed 8/8/11, http://homecookedtheory.com/wp-content/uploads/functioncreepnms.doc, p14.

Gregg, M. N.D., Function Creep: Communication technologies and anticipatory labout in the information workplace, accessed 8/8/11, http://homecookedtheory.com/wp-content/uploads/functioncreepnms.doc

Mitew, T. 2011, Global Media Busniesses and Immaterial Production, DIGC202, Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 15 August.

Pattison, K. 2008, 'Why You Should Have Your Next Business Meeting in Second Life', Fast Company, August 5, accessed 18/8/11, http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2008/08/interview-philip-rosedale.html

Wagner, M. 2007, 'Using Second Life For Meetings And Collaborations', weblog post, InformationWeek, Febreuary 8, accessed 18/8/11, http://www.informationweek.com/blog/229216663

Hierarchy to Networks - A Change in Government?

As mentioned in the lecture there has been a movement in the workplace and life in general to a more networked system of connection from the traditional hierarchy. From the behemoth that was IBM to the now giant Google.

The economy has followed this shift, although not as dramatically as some might suggest, from industrial production to the knowledge production (. This new "Knowledge Economy" (Pol and Carroll 2007, p3) is based around the use of knowledge as both an input and output. What companies are best equipped to thrive in such an economy? One with a very quick feedback cycle.

The OODA loop shows the steps before an action can be (or should be) taken. With the example of World War 1, Ted showed how when this loop takes longer to go through the outcomes becomes less positive. Hence why companies now have very quick communication between members and have shifted from hierarchies to networks of individuals. Although this may be seen as a problem in some respects, it does pose the question, why hasn't government changed?

Granted the government now has to deal with issues such as twitter and they have their own twitter page and facebook page etc...but the government itself has hardly shifted at all. It is obvious to most if not all that for years if not decades, the people have felt the government is out of touch with its people. What better way to get in touch again then by integrating them into a network? I'm not suggesting we become some socialistic utopian dreamland where everyone is equal, merely stating that the hierarchy in place by which the government stands is at its core doomed to stay out of touch with the people. Should they not opt to change a flawed system? Many would say that the system now is unchangeable, that it is the best we can do, but the same was said about previous companies. They were untouchable giants (IBM), which were eventually killed off by disruptive innovations (Pol and Carroll 2007, p17). Perhaps the government will one day face the same fate?

Anonymous 2010 'How you can Opt for Ethical Search engine optimisation programs', weblog post, Webfolio Concepts, August 25, accessed 18/8/2011 http://blog.webfolioconcepts.com/2010/08/25/how-you-can-opt-for-ethical-search-engine-optimisation-programs/

Pol, E. and Carroll, P. 2007, 'New Economy', in An Introduction to the Creative Economy, McGraw Hill, NSW, North Ryde.

Mitew, T 2011, Global Media Busniesses and Immaterial Production, DIGC202, Global Networks, University of Wollongong, delivered 15 August.

The New Economy - Change or Fade Away

"As each realm is overtaken by complex techniques, the usual order is inverted, and new rules established. The mighty tumble, the once confident are left desperate for guidance, and the nimble are given a chance to prevail!" (Kelly 1999, p1) - a metaphor for America?

Kelly talks of a new world order where in the future almost everything will be automatic, that the physical labour of today will become not so physical labour of tomorrow. The hard becoming soft. In fact some even believe that the technological age should or will be described in the future as the "3rd Industrial Revolution" (Pol and Carroll 2007, p5).

Maybe in America the average person is moving into softer and softer industries but I'm sure world wide the average number of people in "hard industries" to those in "soft" will stay relatively equal. It just means that most if not all manufacturing and other labour intensive (non-communication) jobs will be outsourced to Africa and the sub-continent. Eventually the idea of outsourcing will not be so taboo, if it has not changed already, and in the future as technology changes our society, are people really going to be willing to do the work.

In the future, with such a fundamental shift in the economy and society those blue-collar jobs are becoming less and less desirable. Even today the government has to subsidise apprenticeships and open trade schools in order to increase recruitment. So who is to say that in the future, the great Western powers will be very little more than information traders? The age of technology, surely Japan and China will have a say about who will be doing the physical labour in the end.

Kelly, K. 1999, 'This New Economy', in New Rules for the New Economy, accessed 3/8/2011, http://www.kk.org/newrules/newrules-intro.html

Pol, E. and Carroll, P. 2007, 'New Economy', in An Introduction to the Creative Economy, McGraw Hill, NSW, North Ryde.